The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estonian: Ta/nad kõndigu minu kaubanduskeskusesse! Ta / nad kõndigu minu kaubanduskeskusesse he/she / they walk/PRES/JUSS 1SG/GEN shopping mall “May he/she/they walk into my shopping mall!” (Ta/nad) kõndigu minu kaubanduskeskusesse! (Ta / nad) kõndigu minu kaubanduskeskusesse he/she / they walk/3SG/IMP 1SG/GEN shopping mall ”Let him/her/them walk into my shopping mall!” The first example is intentionally pre-interpreted as the jussive and the second example as the imperative. The difference in the functional analysis is evident; in the first example, the jussive does not bear a personal marker. This, as we know from table 5.5 is due to the fact that it does not conjugate after person, meaning that the subject must consequentially be explicitly mentioned. The only vagueness here is whether the subject ta is male or female (provided the subject is a single person). The second example has its subject left out, and the imperative is marked in the third person, since unlike with the jussive paradigm, imperatives in Estonian vary formally depending on person (this variation is generally true in all languages, at least in Europe). However, here exists not only vagueness of gender, but also an ambiguity of person; does the imperative concern a male or female or even a number of people Mentioning the subject here might be necessary after all. The only difference, it seems, between the third person forms in the jussive and the corresponding forms in the imperative is how much mention the subject needs, which, if one wants to avoid ambiguity, may very well be of importance. 5.2 Passive imperatives There exists in certain languages an imperative form not only for the third person singular and plural, but for the passive imperative as well, typically inheriting their forms from the same place. In Finnish, the passive particle -(t)tA- is affixed to the verbal stem followed by the third person singular active optative ending -kOOn to form the passive imperative. So, for example, we end up with the following, using the word kysyä, “to ask”, as an example: 28
Finnish: (Hän) kysyköön kysymyksiä! (Hän) kysy-köön kysymyks-iä he/she ask-3SG/IMP questions-PART/PL ‘Let him/her ask the questions!’ Kysyttäköön sitä! Kysy-ttäköön ask-PASS/IMP ‘Let it be asked!’ sitä it/PART As opposed to the third person forms, the passive imperative may not, for obvious reasons, take an overt subject. Its optative character is arguably even more evident than is the third person forms, solely on the distinction that here, the expected manipulee of the speech act is left unspecified, and the speaker expresses his desire that something is to be done, regardless of whoever actually performs said action. Tehtäköön jotakin! Tehtäköön jotakin do/PASS/IMP something! ”Let something be done!” Another way of rendering this message, somewhat closer to how it is realized in English, would be: Joku tehköön jotakin! Joku tehköön jotakin somebody do/3SG/IMP something “Somebody do something!” In form, they are at their most candidly non-canonical. The passive together with the third person imperatives in Finnish coincide with the corresponding forms in the optative (the passive imperative coinciding with the passive third person singular optative). As such, passive imperatives are almost universally optative in their production. If there is no addressee whatsoever, the utterance as a command or direction is lost to the wind, as 29
Page 1 and 2: UPPSALA UNIVERSITY Bachelor’s The
Page 3 and 4: Abbreviations 1INF First infinite I
Page 5 and 6: 1. Background and purpose The imper
Page 7 and 8: mind passing me the salt”, or a s
Page 9 and 10: There is a depth in using language
Page 11 and 12: optative paradigm (called the jussi
Page 13 and 14: Now, what I found were tendencies i
Page 15 and 16: Irish: Labhraím leis anois. Labhra
Page 17 and 18: Table 3.2: the differences between
Page 19 and 20: So how do non-canonical imperatives
Page 21 and 22: imperative. French is further dissi
Page 23 and 24: 4.2 The hortative functionality of
Page 25 and 26: Irish: Ithim bia! Ithim bia eat/1SG
Page 27 and 28: Table 5.2 Sentence types in Irish D
Page 29 and 30: This function arguably is more impe
Page 31: Table 5.4: Forms of the imperative
Page 35 and 36: and requests for permission are not
Page 37 and 38: Russian (courtesy of Hansen in Roth
Page 39 and 40: Resignation and admission of the sp
Page 41 and 42: References Abraham, Werner and Leis

The function of non-canonical imperatives in the languages of Europe

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?